August 22, 2014, 02:06:34 AM

Author Topic: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes  (Read 4623 times)

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1453
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2013, 08:34:11 AM »
The problem with Ken Rockwell is comparing zoom with prime
Actually, I think the problem was just Ken Rockwell doing anything :)

I know you joking.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2013, 08:34:11 AM »

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2790
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #16 on: November 17, 2013, 05:12:06 AM »
He did a similar thing with a Leica prime vs Nikon 24-70 vs Canon 24-70 Mark I
and went one praising how "superior" the Leica was in term of sharpness

It was the biggest facepalm to me.
You need compare zoom vs zoom.

What's wrong with comparing primes to zooms?  Because everyone knows primes are better?  Perhaps - but how do they know unless they compare?  Besides, in more than one discussion here you will find people telling us how the Canon 24-70 is at least as good as a collection of primes in that range, and presumably they know that because....


Yes it's ok to do so until he drew a conclusion that therefore Leica is superior than CaNikon.
That's when I have problems

Let me get this straight. You don't mind people doing comparisons except when a 3rd party lens manufacturer is shown to be better?

Well at least now we know that you're biased whereas before we would only have suspected you for being a fan-boi.

guym-p

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 1
  • LF Digital (Sinar/Leaf); Nikon D3/D800E; C1Pro7.
    • View Profile
    • Guy Montagu-Pollock Photography
Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #17 on: November 17, 2013, 05:37:59 AM »
Anybody that doesn't think the Nikon 14-24 is comfortably better than (but not perfect) the Canon 16-35 MkII really hasn't used one.
I've owned a Nikon 14-24 for five years, for architecture and interiors.  I had read all the reports, etc, but the first time I used it I didn't find it that sharp.  Not in the way it was being described, anyway.  I began to think I had made a horrible mistake.  To my enormous relief, I found that it was gratifyingly sharp when focused manually using live view.

I have not had the opportunity of testing it against the 16-35 or Zeiss primes, but I have had the pleasure of comparing it with a Canon 5D2/5D3 with 24 TS-E Mk 2 and 17 TS-E.  The 24 TS-E Mk 2 is the sharpest wide-angle lens I have ever tried.  I gawp at its edge-to-edge perfection, even with large amounts of shift.  Again, great care is required with focusing, but the nature of these lenses means one tends to use them on a tripod, and therefore use of live view is natural.  The Nikon 14-24 is not in the same league, but it is head and shoulders above any zoom I have bought, borrowed, or hired.  For instance it is sharper and straighter at 24MM than either the Nikon 24-70/2.8 (not difficult) or the Canon 24-70/2.8 Mk 2 (on a 5D3) although the Canon had less CA in the corners than my own 14-24.

I should add that I do not believe the 14-24 is unique, but that by keeping the focal length range quite tight, and all wide-angle, it suffers less compromise than one that must cross from wide to moderately long focal lengths.  I would expect a 16-35 to be equally capable, or better.

Since my experience five years ago, I have noticed a proliferation in focus calibration tools and software.  I also wonder how many people are disappointed after the first day or week with a new lens, and return lenses with perfectly good optics, because their AF is not spot-on.  The same thing goes for assessments or comparisons.  First impressions are not always the right ones ...
Guy Montagu-Pollock
www.montagu-pollock.co.uk

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2790
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #18 on: November 18, 2013, 02:52:53 AM »
Since my experience five years ago, I have noticed a proliferation in focus calibration tools and software.  I also wonder how many people are disappointed after the first day or week with a new lens, and return lenses with perfectly good optics, because their AF is not spot-on.  The same thing goes for assessments or comparisons.  First impressions are not always the right ones ...


Soft lenses:

http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3322
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #19 on: November 18, 2013, 11:00:17 AM »
And here's how much salt I take with anything from Ken Rockwell:
That's a rather small salt cube
Canon 5DMK3 70D | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 a6000 | RX100M3 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 10-18/4 OSS 16-50 | 24-70/4OSS | 55/1.8 | 55-210 OSS | 70-200/4 OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | GoPro Black 3+ & DJI Phantom

chas1113

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 61
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #20 on: November 18, 2013, 11:45:43 AM »

That's a rather small salt cube
[/quote]

That's because he used a macro prime instead of a wide angle zoom. ::)
Everybody knows macro lenses make everything look bigger.
5D III | 5DII | Fuji X-E1 | EF 17-40 | EF 24-105 | EF 35 IS | EF 50 f/1.4 | EF 100L | EF 70-300L | EF 100-300L | EF 300 f/4 IS

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2684
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #21 on: November 18, 2013, 12:20:24 PM »
The problem with Ken Rockwell is comparing zoom with prime
Actually, I think the problem was just Ken Rockwell doing anything :)

I know you joking.
I am a very sarcastic guy, but in this case, I'm not joking.  Ken Rockwell is the man who, among other things, says that you shouldn't waste your money on a tripod and that the 28 f/1.8 is a great lens (because it's good at f/8).  Even his lens reviews contain statements about what happens when he shakes lenses.  I don't take anything he says seriously.
EOS 1D X, 5DIII, M + EF 24 f/1.4II, 50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2II, 300 f/2.8 IS II || 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/2.8II, 70-200 f/2.8II || TS-E 17 f/4, 24 f/3.5II || M 22 f/2, 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS || 1.4x III, 2x III

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #21 on: November 18, 2013, 12:20:24 PM »

docholliday

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #22 on: November 20, 2013, 02:36:59 AM »
The problem with Ken Rockwell is comparing zoom with prime
Actually, I think the problem was just Ken Rockwell doing anything :)

I know you joking.
I am a very sarcastic guy, but in this case, I'm not joking.  Ken Rockwell is the man who, among other things, says that you shouldn't waste your money on a tripod and that the 28 f/1.8 is a great lens (because it's good at f/8).  Even his lens reviews contain statements about what happens when he shakes lenses.  I don't take anything he says seriously.

Exactly! He is a M-O-R-O-N.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #22 on: November 20, 2013, 02:36:59 AM »